Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News? - Bill Keller/NYT [View all]
Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?Much of the speculation about the future of news focuses on the business model: How will we generate the revenues to pay the people who gather and disseminate the news? But the disruptive power of the Internet raises other profound questions about what journalism is becoming, about its essential character and values. This weeks column is a conversation a (mostly) civil argument between two very different views of how journalism fulfills its mission.
Glenn Greenwald broke what is probably the years biggest news story, Edward Snowdens revelations of the vast surveillance apparatus constructed by the National Security Agency. He has also been an outspoken critic of the kind of journalism practiced at places like The New York Times, and an advocate of a more activist, more partisan kind of journalism. Earlier this month he announced he was joining a new journalistic venture, backed by eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar, who has promised to invest $250 million and to throw out all the old rules. I invited Greenwald to join me in an online exchange about what, exactly, that means.
By BILL KELLER -NYT
Published: October 27, 2013
<snip>
Dear Glenn,
We come at journalism from different traditions. Ive spent a life working at newspapers that put a premium on aggressive but impartial reporting, that expect reporters and editors to keep their opinions to themselves unless they relocate (as I have done) to the pages clearly identified as the home of opinion. You come from a more activist tradition first as a lawyer, then as a blogger and columnist, and soon as part of a new, independent journalistic venture financed by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Your writing proceeds from a clearly stated point of view.
In a post on Reuters this summer, media critic Jack Shafer celebrated the tradition of partisan journalism From Tom Paine to Glenn Greenwald and contrasted it with what he called the corporatist ideal. He didnt explain the phrase, but I dont think he meant it in a nice way. Henry Farrell, who blogs for The Washington Post, wrote more recently that publications like The New York Times and The Guardian have political relationships with governments, which make them nervous about publishing (and hence validating) certain kinds of information, and he suggested that your new project with Omidyar would represent a welcome escape from such relationships.
I find much to admire in Americas history of crusading journalists, from the pamphleteers to the muckrakers to the New Journalism of the 60s to the best of todays activist bloggers. At their best, their fortitude and passion have stimulated genuine reforms (often, as in the Progressive Era, thanks to the journalists political relationships with governments). I hope the coverage you led of the National Security Agencys hyperactive surveillance will lead to some overdue accountability.
But the kind of journalism The Times and other mainstream news organizations practice at their best includes an awful lot to be proud of, too, revelations from Watergate to torture and secret prisons to the malfeasance of the financial industry, and including some pre-Snowden revelations about the N.S.A.s abuse of its authority. Those are highlights that leap to mind, but youll find examples in just about every days report. Journalists in this tradition have plenty of opinions, but by setting them aside to follow the facts as a judge in court is supposed to set aside prejudices to follow the law and the evidence they can often produce results that are more substantial and more credible. The mainstream press has had its failures episodes of credulousness, false equivalency, sensationalism and inattention for which we have been deservedly flogged. I expect youll say, not flogged enough. So I pass you the lash.
Dear Bill...
<snip>
Much More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/a-conversation-in-lieu-of-a-column.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
63 replies, 5889 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I know what you are saying but where can I get real news? You are concerned that GG will slant
rhett o rick
Oct 2013
#13
I predict there will be a lot of crow eating by certain critics. I wonder how many will own
adirondacker
Oct 2013
#3
He advocates a more "activist, more partisan journalsim". I think that's the biggest
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#15
Snowden went to Greenwald first with the story because he liked Greenwald's work
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2013
#18
That is not the information I have. Gellman was working with Poitras very early on. She asked for
okaawhatever
Oct 2013
#27
A most excellent exchange of letters expressing their points of view, having said that
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#25